"This, then is our desert:
to live facing despair,
but not to consent.
To trample it down under hope in the Cross.
To wage war against despair unceasingly.
That war is our wilderness.
If we wage it courageously,
we will find Christ at our side.
If we cannot face it,
we will never find him."

Thursday, 17 November 2011

BBC bias again

This is from an article on the Catholic Herald website. Read it in full here:

"...Because over the last few decades, the Corporation has become a mouthpiece for the sort of people it employs: young, trendy Lefties, disproportionately gay and from ethic minorities, who see nothing to be learned from institutions, from history, and from religion in particular. (Unless it’s Islam, of course. I’ve lost count of the number of gushing documentaries about the Prophet Mohammed churned out over the last few years, replete with “authentic” pronunciation of Arabic terms and the occasional “peace be upon him” thrown in for good measure.)..."

Personally I don't think the BBC has a specific anti-religious agenda - I've always found their religious broadcasting personnel a joy to work with. The problem is one of corporate ethos - a matter of clear institutional bias. The kind of people the Corporation tends to employ, nationally if not always in the regions, as presenters, production staff and managers, if not part of a well heeled, well-connected metropolitan elite sharing a common set of unquestioned liberal values, tend to be heavily weighted in favour of ethnic minorities or those with minority sexual preferences. There are very clear taboos as to who or what may be subject to criticism, leaving the Christian faith, those whose political views are right of centre, and those who are unfashionable enough not to share the prevailing social liberalism as among the only acceptable targets. There seems to be a complete lack of concern (not, I think, awareness) that there may be people out there who share neither the Corporation's views nor it's values. It approaches the level of contempt.
I don't watch much television, but the radio 'comedy' output these days, to take a random example, seems to consist almost exclusively of distinctively unfunny and angry left-wing rants masquerading as humour, some so 'right on' as to be acutely embarrassing. It was a surprise to discover the other night a programme whose ruling conceit (this was Stephen Fry, after all) was a cringe-makingly-written love affair between two 'gay' horses - not any old horses, of course, but those of the Duke of Wellington and the Emperor Napoleon. A real find.

None of this constant churning out of one-sided propaganda would matter very much, of course, if we, the listeners and viewers, had a choice. But the fact is that the BBC has a virtual monopoly of our 'serious' nationwide radio broadcasting and, to a lesser but still significant extent, on what remains of 'serious' television output. Not only that, but we are all paying for it through the licence fee. It's one thing to have our opinions and beliefs constantly mocked and pilloried, it's another when they are doing it with our money.
The irony is, of course, that the BBC is a superlative broadcaster; but it could be much better at fulfilling its public commission without the bias, without sacrificing anything other than its tendency to self-indulgence.

Totally agree that Bring Back Communism (BBC)has a loony left agenda which is why Balls, Peston, Naughty, Quinn, Blanchflower and Labour / Unions are constantly assaulting our ears.Humour - what humour? They even have a "comedy" programme parodying their own elite broadcasters that is so bad I have to turn off after 5 minutes. Gardener's Question Time is far funnier than their so called comedy.Today was the first time a government committee chairman had the courage to question the BBC's lack of integrity, needless to say the Today Programme presenter quickly moved on.Patten should be ashamed for hiding under a rock.